The
Great Depression of the 1930's, and the war that followed it, set into motion
a slow but profound re-evaluation of nationalism in general, and of ultramontane
nationalism in particular.

At
first glance, the Great Depression brought the ultramontane nationalists to new
prominence in Quebec. The devastating effects of the depression on the well-being
of the people of Quebec [see in the statistics and graph section of the site the
following: Birth
rate, 1922-1945, Marriage
rate, 1922-1945, Personal
income and cost of living, 1929-1939, Public
debt, 1929-1939, and Unemployment
of trade union workers, 1929-1939] seem to have demonstrated the accuracy
of the many criticisms made by the nationalists of industrialisation, urbanisation
and the type of economic world which dominated the province. The effect of these
problems was to radicalise a good portion of the youths, to bring the long-standing
liberal regime governing the province into discredit and, eventually, political
defeat, to make the nationalists pay closer attention to social problems, to question
the anti-statism that had characterised the past, as many would turn to the governments
to alleviate the problems, turn to political action to achieve social and national
goals. It should not be considered that all of these things occurred immediately.
In the short run, it gave the ultramontane nationalists the opportunity to be
more prominent than they had been in a long time, so that some of their members,
such as Abbé Groulx, Philippe Hamel or Paul Gouin, became household names. However,
in the longer run, a considerable transformation of nationalism in Quebec began.

The second factor
that led to the rise of a different form of nationalism stemmed from the Second
World War. The war finished the vast socio-economic transformations that the process
of industrialisation had begun in Quebec early in the century. The Great Depression
and the war put an end to the emigration of French Canadians to the United States;
the end of this process served to make the nationalists focus increasingly on
Quebec. The war accelerated the rural exodus in Quebec and firmly planted the
economy of the province in the industrial and resource sectors. Following the
war, it would be laughable to make speeches about agriculture being the way of
life of the French Canadians. The social transformations taking place during the
war were no less important: Quebec women received the right to vote and made a
strong entrance into the labour markets, education became compulsory and far more
widespread, the traditional family (large, rural, religious) was changing rapidly.

A second component
connected to the war was also of significance. It demonstrated conclusively that
atrocitiescould be committed in the name of ideologies in general, and of racism
in particular. Already before the war, perceptive and sensitive nationalists,
such as André Laurendeau and Guy Frégault, had attempted to distance Quebec nationalism
from right-wing ideologies, glorification of race and anti-semitism. They were
too few to really make a dent in well-entrenched ideas. But the war accelerated
the process of re-evaluation of components of the old nationalism. However, it
should be borne in mind that the defeat of racist ideas in Quebec, as elsewhere
in the Western World, was not immediate and was extended over quite a period following
the war. Esther Delisle, in Mythes, mémoire & mensonges. L'intelligentsia
du Québec devant la tentation fasciste, 1939-1960, 1998, 198p. has demonstrated
conclusively, although with her usual exaggerations, the persistence of right
wing and racist ideas in Quebec after the war. In the post-war period, Quebec
was also to have its first significant, organised anti-nationalist groups.

So,
the Great Depression and the war started a process of re-evaluation of the ultramontane
nationalism. What was to emerge eventually, and become the dominant form of nationalism
after 1960, was a social-democratic form of nationalism. In this recent period
of Quebec history, we are confronted with difficulties in interpretation. The
best tool of the historian is hindsight. The passage of time has a way of focusing
attention on what truly deserves it. It helps separate the mere detail from the
more fundamental. We have not yet had enough time to define with great certainty
the shape, and future, of the current form of nationalism in Quebec. Also, there
has emerged a fair diversity in the scope of nationalist ideas and groups in this
last period. Thus, it is more difficult to account for all of them and we have
not attempted to do so. What we seek to define is the dominant form of nationalism
at any one time. Since 1960, social-democratic nationalism has been dominant.

In analysing
this form of nationalism,
we will first examine its class foundations. In the introduction, it was argued
that the class basis of nationalism determines, to a large extent, the nature
and content of the nationalism. This was self-evident with the professional class
of the pre 1840 period, as well as with the clerical class of the ultramontane
period. Next we will focus on the nature of the nation, on the "we",
of the social-democratic nationalism. Lastly, we will analyse the ideological
and political content of this nationalism.

The
best way to describe the class that has spearheaded the nationalist movement in
Quebec is to call it bureaucratic. The term bureaucratic class does not
perfectly describe the group. However, the phenomenal growth of the provincial
government, during and after the Quiet Revolution, provided huge opportunities
for the better-educated population in Quebec. Civil servants, teachers, doctors,
nurses and administrators were hired in large numbers from among French Canadians
to operate the increasingly elaborate and complex network of state institutions
in Quebec. The government of Quebec became far more involved in supporting the
arts and letters in the province, creating or financing arts centres, providing
bursaries or fellowships to creative people, supporting authors and book publishers,
and, thus, with the advent of television, contributed to create a large artistic
community more or less dependant on the public purse. As well, a third component
of the bureaucratic class, is the entrepreneurial class that has been formed in
Quebec since the early 1960's. What we are addressing here is not the dominant
business class, a class that is internationalist in outlook and personnel, but
rather the emerging French speaking business class which often needed the support
of the state to find its place in the business world. In one way or the other,
the nationalist class that has emerged in the last generation is connected to
the government of Quebec and is dependent on its continued growth for its well
being. Evidently, its loyalty is directed to the government that supports it,
and is itself, the creation of this class. Thus, we should not be surprised that
there is such a great focus on Quebec by the current nationalists.

If
the class that supports nationalism is different, so is the nature of the nation,
of the "we". As, the "canadien" nationalism of the Patriotes
became "French Canadian" nationalism in the 1840's, the "French
Canadian" nationalism of the ultramontane period became the "Québécois" nationalism from the 1960's. Each of these seeming subtle changes of nomenclature
reflects, in fact, a huge alteration in the nature of the nation. In shedding
the strongly ethnic components that defined the earlier nationalism, including
its racist elements, the new cement of the nationalism became primarily the territorial
element, focused on Quebec. The territorial element had not been important in
the earlier nationalism, as the nation having been defined as French Canadian,
and French Canadians having been scattered all across the continent, then it could
not have a precise territorial element. This had been a problem for the separatists
of that period, as separatism can hardly be achieved if there is not a precise
territorial content. The separatists had resolved this by either calling the proposed
independent French Canadian state something like Laurentie, a sort of borderless
and, thus, impossible state, or else, as in the case of Groulx, their independent
state was only really a "state of mind". Now, with the new nationalism,
all the people of Quebec became part of the nation. None were excluded and, as
the nation contained various elements, such as francophones, anglophones, allophones
and various native groups, it was thus diverse and in need of unifying components.
Aside from the territorial component, the unifying component of the Quebec nation
was the French language, a language eventually understood by about 94% of the
population of the province. The goal of the preservation, development and future
state of the nation was also, presumably, a unifying component.

The
territorial form of nationalism was evidently more opened to those within the
nation who were newcomers. The attitude of the social-democratic nationalists
to immigrants was in sharp contrast with that which the earlier nationalists had
displayed. This change was essential, as immigrants increasingly made a contribution
to the demographic weight of Quebec, and without them the province would begin
to decline. While the attitude to immigrants improved markedly, old habits sometimes
surfaced and immigrants have complained, at times, that they did not feel as accepted
as they should be by the nationalists. Many have claimed that they feel excluded
still, as the goals of the nationalists are inevitably primarily focused on the
desires of francophones [promotion of the French language, independence]. The
incident of the referendum night of 1995, lost narrowly by the nationalists, when
the Premier of Quebec, Jacques Parizeau, blamed this loss on "money and ethnic
votes" is raised as an example of lingering intolerance of "les autres" among the nationalists. Yet, it should be remembered that the Premier was forced
to resign after he made this disparaging, and inaccurate, comment because such
intolerant views have now become not only unacceptable to the population of Quebec
in general, but to nationalists as well. To define the nation in ethnic terms
are still a reflex that is found among the new nationalists, but it is also an
attitude that has become unacceptable and inappropriate. The anti-nationalists
are prone to play-up the instances of ethnic nationalism, and the nationalists
provide them with sufficient ammunitions from time to time. To the student of
Quebec nationalism, it is clear that the evolution of the recent past toward a
more open form of nationalism is unmistakable; tolerance has become part of the
universe of the nationalists. Yet, it is also clear that the nationalists of Quebec
have not embraced multiculturalism as has been done in English Canada since the
late 1960's.

An
inevitable corollary of territorial nationalism, of focusing the nation on Quebec,
was that the nationalists ceased to see the nation as a minority nation.
If the nation was the Quebec nation, then the Québécois were a majority nation.
If it was a majority nation, it was likely to act as if the social, economical
and political institutions of Quebec were an extension of its will, and would
be the instruments for its advancement and security. It would also alter the relationship
that existed between the Quebec nation and the rest of the people of Canada, deemed
also to form a nation, in the cosmology of the social-democratic nationalists.
Before 1960, the relationship that existed between the French Canadian nation,
a minority nation, with the rest of the country or the continent, constituting
together a majority, was that of a threatened and persecuted minority.
When the will of the two nations clashed, the minority nation had to give
way. This nurtured a sense of unfairness but also the sense of threat to the nation;
this sense of threat was important for the survival and the cohesion of the French
Canadian nation. Now, the clashes would be between two majorities with no way
to resolve them. The implications for the continuance of Canada were far greater
than before.

What
were the main ideological elements of the new nationalism and how can it be described
as social-democratic? To what extent was it different from the earlier nationalism?

An important
element of the new nationalism was its opposition to several components of ultramontane
nationalism. This aspect was particularly contributed by a group of academics
that became very vocal through the 1950's; they were known as the neo-nationalists.
They wrote in Le Devoir, l'Action nationale, Relations and
railed continuously at the content of the earlier nationalism. They attacked agriculturalism,
messianism and anti-statism; indeed, it was in this period that Brunet wrote his
famous essay defining these "myths", and condemning them at the same
time. They discounted much of the historical interpretation of their predecessors,
arguing instead for a more scientific base to the knowledge of the past, and propounding,
in the process, a rather pessimistic interpretation of history. Gone were the
Catholic virtues of the people, the focus on religion was replaced by socio-economic
interpretations instead; the Conquest was emphasised as the cardinal event in
Quebec history. They also rejected much of the three pillars of survival. The
faith and the institutions were downplayed and replaced by language. The sense
that survival had somehow been miraculous was ridiculed; sociological factors
now explained the survival of French Canada. Much of this greatly upset the high
priest of the ultramontane nationalist period, Abbé Groulx. He could not understand
how these writers could so turn their backs on their predecessors, reject their
values, and still claim, in the process, to be nationalists! This was especially
the case for the all-important aspect of Catholicism. The neo-nationalists were
defining the nation in secular terms. Meanwhile, the anti-nationalists were also
strongly condemning clericalism in Quebec. When Groulx died, in 1967, Claude Ryan
wrote that he was "the spiritual father" of modern Quebec. A more inaccurate
statement could hardly have been made! The ultramontane nationalists interpreted
the work of the new nationalists as attempting to demolish what they had erected,
and what they believed in. On the whole, they were not incorrect. [On the neo-nationalists,
consult Michael D. Behiels, Prelude to Quebec's Quiet Revolution. Liberalism
Versus Neo-Nationalism, 1945-1960, McGill-Queen's, 1985, 366p.]

Another
component of the new nationalism was statism. Between 1945 and 1960, the nationalists
discovered the state. This was in sharp contrast with the nationalism of the earlier
period. We should not be surprised that a bureaucratic class discovered the state,
and what one could do when one controlled a state! These views were put into practice
at the time of the Quiet Revolution and an elaborate state system was set up [see
at the site: Quiet
Revolution, and Jean
Lesage and the Quiet Revolution]. The primary argument in favour of state
intervention that was made was that the state was the only lever of development
that was controlled by the nation, and that it was the only effective way that
the long standing economic inferiority of the French Canadians, individually or
collectively, would ever be removed. Thus, these nationalists sought to use the
state more frequently, and as the Quebec state was limited in its scope of activities
by the practices of the federal government, and by the constitutional stipulations
that govern the provincial governments in Canada, the nationalists sought to extend
the powers of the government of Quebec. Sometimes, this put the government of
Quebec on a course of confrontation with the federal government. Thus, while confrontation
with the federal government seemed to follow the same path as before, in reality
it did not. Previously the nationalists clashed with the federal government in
order to defend provincial autonomy, to safeguard the characteristics of the nation,
the pillars of survival. Now the nationalists clashed with the federal government
to extend the powers of the provincial government, and obtain a greater share
of the taxes collected in the province, so that the state in Quebec would be more
active.

With
the Citélibristes, the nationalists shared the desire to modernise Quebec, to
secularise it, and to democratise its political processes. All these objectives
are quite apparent in the achievements of the government of Jean Lesage during
the Quiet Revolution, as well as in the first term of office of René Lévesque's
Parti Québécois, between 1976 and 1981. In the 1950's, Le Devoir conducted many
campaigns, and was at the forefront of the battle against the corruption of the
Duplessis government. The electoral laws eventually enacted in Quebec were among
the most democratic to be found anywhere in the world.

Another
element of the new nationalism that developed after 1945, an element so important
that it serves to identify these nationalists as "social-democratic" nationalists, was the incorporation of "social" issues as part
of their system of thought. A careful reading of the works of the ultramontane
nationalists of the earlier period shows that they paid attention to socio-economic
issues. But their focus on these issues was based primarily on their wish to see
Catholic social doctrines applied as solutions, and, by so doing, to prevent solutions
from being imported from other systems of thought. In other words, their social
concern was rooted in their desire to maintain unaltered the pillar of Catholicism.
They had also viewed social problems primarily as national problems. Social and
economic issues were intimately related to the inferior economic situation of
French Canadians. In their estimation, French Canada constituted a vast dominated
class whose problems needed to be confronted through the angle of the nation.
For them, to have recognised the existence of classes within French Canada, would
have been to divide the nation. The solutions they proposed to these socio-economic
problems, while not intrinsically bad in themselves, usually hinged on "national"
components: French Canada needed "national" Catholic labour unions,
co-operatives would be reserved only for the members of the nation [example: the
Caisses Populaires], "national" education, etc. The first major breakdown
in this junction of social and national issues occurred in the 1930's. By a decision
of the Canadian episcopate, the Catholic [and social] elements of various organisations,
such as in the Association catholique de la jeunesse canadienne, a venerable nationalist
youth group that was founded in 1904, were divorced from the "national"
components. Henceforth, the Catholic organisations would only pursue Catholic
goals. To clerico-nationalists, such as Groulx, this was a tragedy, as national
and Catholic goals had been so profoundly enmeshed. The controversy that broke
out on this point was resolved in favour of restricting Catholic organisations
to Catholic, and by extension, social goals. This decision was to contribute,
eventually, in lessening the influence of Groulx and, by contrast, in increasing
that of Père Georges-Henri Lévesque, founder of the Social Science school at Laval
University [On this controversy, see Giselle Huot, "La correspondance Georges-Henri
Lévesque-Lionel Groulx (1934-1937)", in Les Cahiers d'histoire du Québec
au XX siècle,(summer 1994): 85-118]

Thus,
from the 1930's, social problems started to be seen as separate from national
problems. The existence of independent social critics served to focus the nationalists
in a more realistic way on social problems. Among the new nationalists that appeared
on the scene at the time, there began a slow, but unmistakable integration of
social ideas in their system of thought. This is noticeable among some of the
members of the Bloc Populaire, and would become very evident with the Asbestos
strike in 1949. In general, the inspiration for the new social thought of the
nationalists, as for the Citélibristes, came from the French Catholic left of
Emmanuel Mounier, personnalisme, and the journal Esprit. [See Peter Taaffe, "The Influence of the French Catholic Left on Quebec, 1945-1955", in The Register, Vol. 4 (1983): 53-72]

In
the 1960's and 1970's, the social ideas of the nationalists became increasingly
radicalised and shifted progressively into socialism or Marxism. Scores of publications
and small groups reflected this new tendency and the social-democratic nationalists
were by-passed on the left by the Marxist nationalists. Still, the main impact
of the appearance of these groups was to help focus the nationalists on strictly
social and economic questions. Eventually, even in the Parti Québécois, it would
not be rare to see discussed the need for the nation to become independent because
it would be the best means to resolve socio-economic issues. The party liked to
project a modernist, progressive, and socially active image; it never disliked
having the epithet of social democrat applied to it.

Aside
from the elements already raised, and superseding them in importance, and with
an impact that is far reaching, there has been the phenomenal growth of the separatist
movement, or of the independence movement as the nationalists like to call it.
It is not my purpose here to trace the history, and the reasons for, the growth
of the separatist movement in recent Quebec history; this will be done somewhere
else on the site eventually.

From
the time of the Union Act, where the issue of the survival of the nation became
the existential question in Quebec, two attitudes developed: one stressed that
survival would be achieved by co-operating with English Canadians, in a common
country, to achieve common goals, this we call the federalist attitude, while
the other emphasised the need to create a separate state, dedicated to the preservation
of the nation, this we call the separatist attitude. In the ultramontane period,
the nationalists were divided between the two attitudes, although the federalist
attitude was evidently the more popular one. It should also be remembered that
the lack of a precise territorial element for the nation, in the mind of the ultramontane
nationalists, made separatism almost impossible to achieve in practice in the
period before 1960. Since the 1960's, there have been considerable changes on
this point.

Several
aspects of the new nationalism, and other circumstances, brought a phenomenal
rise of separatism since the 1960's, to the extent that it is dominant among the
nationalists, and supported very strongly among francophones [see my chart
of nationalist support also on this site]. The new nationalism focused on
Quebec, and on the growth of importance of its state; thus, it possessed the territorial
element requisite to apply separatism. It also detached itself from the notion
of a minority nation, and thus from the various minorities across the country.
The existence of minorities is not a reason not to achieve independence any more
as would have been the case before. The new nationalism has also shifted the emphasis
from mere "survival" to the notion of "development" of the
nation; it has been deemed that more powers to Quebec are necessary to achieve
this development. It is also apparent that Canada has not been able to absorb
in an effective and acceptable manner the new nationalism in Quebec; thus the
federal government has stayed away from the more collective solutions, such as
special status for Quebec, that might have been required to resolve the problem.
As a consequence, successive federal governments have evidently made mistakes,
and the failures caused by these mistakes have fuelled the separatist side. The
separatists have also been able to find popular and charismatic leaders, such
as René Lévesque or Lucien Bouchard, who have very effectively attracted support
to the separatist cause. Lastly, the growth of the separatist movement was fuelled
by the example of widespread decolonisation achieved elsewhere in the world in
the 1960's, or the break-up of multi-national states in the 1990's.

Conclusion

Thus, it is apparent
that nationalism has been a major force in Quebec history. First, the British
colonial links, and later the issue of the survival and development of the nation,
have fuelled nationalism in Quebec. It is also clear that, properly speaking,
there is no such thing as Quebec nationalism. In fact, there have been various
forms of nationalism, each corresponding to a different definition of the nation.
In this respect, we have distinguished three main forms. The first was the "Canadien"
nationalism dominant before 1840. This form of nationalism was especially progressive,
tolerant and inclusive. It was also very popular. The changes that occurred at
the time of the Rebellions of 1837-1838, and of the Union Act, rapidly led to
the rise of ultramontane nationalism (clerico-nationalisme). The nature of the
nation changed significantly, it became the French Canadian nation. This nation
was a minority nation, and in the nationalist universe, it was confronted with
considerable threats. It centred on the defence of the three pillars of survival,
primarily on Catholicism. The nation was in a miserable state and the nationalists
offered various solutions for curing the many ills that afflicted it. These nationalists
were not very successful, frequently preached in the desert, and often had to
repeat the same thing; they were confronted with the existential question as to
how best to assure the survival of the nation. To a large extent they were prepared
to stay in Canada. As Quebec evolved, and increasingly industrialised and urbanised,
the solutions proposed by the ultramontane nationalists were opposed and a new
form of nationalism emerged: the Québécois nationalism. The nation was now focused
on Quebec and was a majority nation. Many of the ideas of the past were discarded.
The new nationalism was secular, more tolerant and open, on the left, with considerable
social preoccupations. It challenged Canada in ways more serious than anything
done previously. It was primarily separatist and received increasing support among
francophones, although it made very little inroads among anglophones and allophones
and was strenuously opposed by both groups.

Thus,
at any one time, there was a dominant form of nationalism in Quebec. This nationalism
was frequently in reaction to the earlier nationalism. However, it should not
be deduced that earlier forms of nationalism and attitudes did not survive to
compete with the dominant form. Liberal forms of nationalism continued in the
XIXth century in l'Institut Canadien and in the Rouge party. Elements of it evidently
influenced Henri Bourassa. Ultramontane nationalism was rapidly discarded from
the 1960's onward. However some of the views of these nationalists continued to
persist, especially in their vision of the others as threatening, and some intolerant
reflexes.